State v. McLaughlin

Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec

August 15, 2017

STATE OF MAINEv.MARCUS MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

This
matter comes before the court on the Defendant's Motion
to Suppress all evidence obtained as a result of a traffic
stop that occurred on December 14, 2016 in Augusta, Maine
that led to his arrest and prosecution for aggravated
trafficking in scheduled drugs. An evidentiary hearing was
held on May 18, 2017 where the court heard testimony from
Detective Michael Bickford and Deputy Aaron Moody of the
Kennebec County Sheriff's Office. At the hearing, the
court also accepted into evidence certain documents by
agreement and took judicial notice of the court's own
docket.

In his
motion, the Defendant argues that law enforcement did not
have reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the traffic
stop. The State argues that the stop was legally justified
because the operator of the vehicle in which the Defendant
was a passenger was under court ordered conditions at the
time of the traffic stop that subjected her to random search
and testing for illegal drugs. The State offers no other
justification for the traffic stop.

To
determine the constitutionality of a traffic stop, the court
must decide whether the police acted "on the basis of
'specific and articulable facts which, taken together
with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
that intrusion.'" State v. Griffin, 459
A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me. 1983); Terry v Ohio, 392 U.S.
1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). For a stop
to be justified, "the court clearly must find that the
police actually had such a suspicion at the time of
the investigatory stop." State v. Chapman, 495
A.2d 314, 317 (Me. 1985). The stop can't be justified by
information obtained after the time of the stop. Id.

The
only factual issue in dispute here is whether the law
enforcement officers involved in the traffic stop actually
knew that the operator of the vehicle in question was on
court ordered conditions at the time of the
stop[1].

What
should be a simple factual determination is complicated by
the uncertain testimony of Detective Bickford and the
inconsistencies in the officers' written reports.

In his
testimony, Detective Bickford said that he had dealt with the
driver as a defendant in several prior drug cases, but he was
not exactly sure of any convictions resulting from those
cases. He testified that he knew on the day in question that
she was on conditions that allowed search and testing for
drugs and dangerous weapons[2] but he was unsure whether the
driver was on bail conditions, probation conditions, or
administrative release conditions. Detective Bickford
initially testified that he did not recall if he checked to
see what conditions applied to the driver on December 14,
2016, though he later said he probably checked. He said that
he knew the driver was on conditions of release at one time
and on conditions of probation after that, though the
evidence presented in the hearing established that the driver
was not on probation on December 14, 2016 and was instead on
administrative release. Detective Bickford's testimony
was also unclear as to what information was available to law
enforcement online about conditions and what information
could only be obtained from dispatch or a court. Detective
Bickford's testimony was further undermined during
cross-examination when inconsistencies between his police
report and his sworn probable cause affidavit were
exposed[3] .

In
contrast to Detective Bickford, Deputy Moody's testimony
was straightforward and credible. He testified he made the
traffic stop at issue at the request of Detective Bickford
and that Detective Bickford told him that the female operator
was under search conditions for drugs. He testified that he
did not conduct a computer search on the driver before making
the stop and relied entirely on the information provided by
Detective Bickford for the justification of the stop. He also
testified that the online system available to law enforcement
in their cars shows only if a person is on bail or probation
but does not include if an individual is on administrative
release. He also testified credibly that the system does not
always show what conditions apply to an individual and that
the actual conditions sometimes need to be obtained by
calling a court.

The
evidence presented at the hearing establishes that on
December 14, 2016, the driver was on administrative release
and was subject to random search and testing for drugs. This
is not in dispute.

It is
the court's finding of fact that Detective Bickford did
not check on December 14, 2016 to determine if the driver was
subject to search conditions. If Detective Bickford had
checked the system available to law enforcement it would have
become apparent to him that the driver was in fact not on
bail or probation. Only a more thorough search, likely
requiring a phone call which he undoubtedly would have
remembered and testified about, would have revealed that she
was on administrative release and what conditions applied.

Because
Detective Bickford did not check to determine if the driver
was subject to search conditions on December 14, 2016, it is
the court's finding of fact that he could not and did not
actually know that she was subject to any search conditions.
He had a hunch that she was under conditions based on his
past dealings with her but he did not know she was subject to
search conditions at that time[4].

It is
imperative that officers confirm that search conditions
remain applicable before conducting a search of an individual
or their property. Bail, probation, and administrative
release conditions often allow significant intrusion into the
privacy and liberty of the individuals subject to the
conditions. Application of such conditions can, as was the
case here, also impact associates and family members of the
individuals covered. Such conditions regularly change and
individuals subject to conditions one day may not be subject
to the same conditions the next. Only confirmation of
currently applicable conditions will ensure that law
enforcement officers are acting lawfully. That did not occur
here[5].

The
purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police
misconduct and prevent the State from benefitting from that
misconduct by foreclosing the State's opportunity to use
illegally obtained evidence against the accused at trial.
State v. Bailey,2012 ME 55, ¶ 16, 41 A.3d 535.
In this case, Detective Bickford's failure to confirm
that the driver of the vehicle was subject to any conditions
before having her vehicle stopped was police misconduct.
Initiating a stop based on possible search conditions is
unreasonable unless action is taken to confirm that such
conditions actually are in effect before the stop. The
Defendant's Motion to Suppress is therefore GRANTED and
any evidence obtained against the Defendant as a result of
the December 14, 2016 traffic stop is therefore suppressed
and may not be used against the Defendant at trial.

---------

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.